Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt

[lin]

I personally would make a bad juror for this case because I have analyzed the evidence released in the media and have formed my opinion. Granted I could maybe suspend my opinion in court (I have before), but in my case the defense for this particular case would have to convince me Casey isn't guilty. Which is against the values of our justice system. It's the prosecution that must prove their case and in my mind I would be entering the courtroom with the nagging thought they already did.

That's not to say that a person who is educated on a case would make a bad juror if that juror can suspend their opinion and listening to both sides evidence objectively and enter into court with the idea the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. There are other cases I could do that with....this one, no I can't and I'd have to admit that. Which would have me disqualified from the jury.

I don't really know you but I'll disagree anyway. Some jurors are actually angry when they feel they must acquit, by law. They can hold the contradictory feelings that the defendant is guilty but that the state didn't meet the legal burden. I'd bet you could fall into that category. Knowing basically what happened and how but mad as a hornet the state failed to prove it, if they do fail. jmho

 

[marspiter]

Thanks for all your input marspiter. I can't read the case cause I am out the door, but was wondering if the case you reference shows the jury DID convict regardless of the fact they shouldn't have under these conditions or that the jury instructions told them that they could and then they did.
Thanks.

Posted the syllabus of the case. I believe from reading that, the jury was instructed and they did as instructed.

 

[lin]

In this case, there is no direct evidence that supports the necessary elements for a murder one conviction; e.g., premeditation, reflection, intent etc.. Therefore, prosecutors must prove their premeditated murder charge through inferences derived from circumstantial evidence. Because you agree that no single piece of circumstantial evidence exists that reliably supports (proves) the necessary elements of murder one, then all that is left is reasonable doubt and a "not guilty" verdict (insufficient evidence).

You cannot convict on the totality of the evidence when not a single piece of inculpatory evidence is reliable to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Please understand that if each component of a sum (total) is not sufficiently reliable to prove guilt, the sum (total) cannot be sufficiently reliable -- thinking otherwise represents fallacious logic.

(Jury instructions cover this.)

You have said this many times but so far I haven't seen anything to support what must therefore be your opinion that: "You cannot convict on the totality of the evidence when not a single piece of inculpatory evidence is reliable to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt." Some of us are here to learn, and I think your sig line is very apropos here:

"It's not what a man knows that makes him a fool, it's what he does know that ain't so. .... Josh Billings "

Unless and until you can support this assertion as applicable Florida law, it would be much appreciated if you didn't state it as fact; educating folks on things that just ain't so, imo.

Please show me one case, any case, just one that had a single piece of inculpatory evidence reliable to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Failing that, as I expect there is no such case, please give a hypothetical case were one single piece of evidence could carry the day. I am hopeful that you will either educate me and others here or by trying to write it out, may even be educated yourself.

"...if each component of a sum (total) is not sufficiently reliable to prove guilt, the sum (total) cannot be sufficiently reliable -- thinking otherwise represents fallacious logic." That statement is the epitome of fallacious logic, imo, and to my understanding. If each piece of evidence is sufficiently reliable to prove guilty, why on earth take the time to show the 2nd piece? Or the 38th? Please do take the time to show otherwise.

 

[lin]

If you do a search we do have a thread on that already!

If I'm remembering the one you're thinking of, it wasn't set up quite this way. Poster's exhibit 1, the car trunk.... Poster's exhibit 25, Blockbuster video... and so on. If anyone recalls a thread more along the lines of what Imbackon is doing, please let me know. TIA!

 

[Jolynna]

COD is not necessary to show premeditation. For example, the web searches that KC likely performed may show her intent; her plan. It would be a lot neater if the searches could be linked to a COD but it's not necessary. She researched murdering a child; explored cases wherein children were "missing" likely to plan a faked reaction to events. It's going to be too large of a coincidence for many that shortly thereafter her own child was murdered.

As I've already explained, the duct tape for me shows more premeditation. The time it took KC to acquire the duct tape can account for the legal standard of premeditation. The time it took KC to apply the 2nd strip of duct tape is also legally sufficient to show premeditation. The time lapse between the first strip and Caylee's death is enough time for her to reflect on her actions and that's all that's required.

Remember the Huck case, the duct tape issue has been litigated in Florida. The 5th DCA found no reasonable explanation for post mortem duct tape. So unless KC's defense can come up with a reasonable explanation, whether or not the duct tape actually killed her, it's going to be inferred as at least part of the mechanism of death. And no, fluids, open mouth, etc. are not going to be seen as reasonable, especially with the other circumstances.

Will the defense even be able to argue the possibility of the duct tape being put on after death? Especially if KC hasn't even told them that is in fact what happened?

In the Huck case, Huck himself didn't say he duct taped his victim after death. That scenario was a hypothesis suggested by Huck's defense team. Their strategy was to attack LE's investigation, say the prosecution had not met the burden of proof and to suggest alternative "maybe" theories.

Can KC's defense team present a "maybe" now deemed by the Florida Supreme court NOT to be reasonable?

 

[The Eunice Burns]

I don't really know you but I'll disagree anyway. Some jurors are actually angry when they feel they must acquit, by law. They can hold the contradictory feelings that the defendant is guilty but that the state didn't meet the legal burden. I'd bet you could fall into that category. Knowing basically what happened and how but mad as a hornet the state failed to prove it, if they do fail. jmho

BBM When we were deliberating, a member of our jury felt very conflicted. She felt that we were letting the defendant go free and he would just end up in the same place again--as a defendant charged w/ a felony. I told her we could not find him guilty to prevent that from happening, we had to find him guilty if the state proved their case, which they did not. The other jurors agreed, we let her voice her feelings and went over the case again. She knew we had to follow the law. So, I beg to differ (not w/ you, lin) that it is that difficult for juries to come to a legal conclusion of acquittal when they apply the judge's instructions.

 

[marspiter]

In this case, there is no direct evidence that supports the necessary elements for a murder one conviction; e.g., premeditation, reflection, intent etc.. Therefore, prosecutors must prove their premeditated murder charge through inferences derived from circumstantial evidence. Because you agree that no single piece of circumstantial evidence exists that reliably supports (proves) the necessary elements of murder one, then all that is left is reasonable doubt and a "not guilty" verdict (insufficient evidence).

You cannot convict on the totality of the evidence when not a single piece of inculpatory evidence is reliable to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Please understand that if each component of a sum (total) is not sufficiently reliable to prove guilt, the sum (total) cannot be sufficiently reliable -- thinking otherwise represents fallacious logic.

(Jury instructions cover this.)

Furthermore this is not what the jury instructions say.

According to the Florida Standard Criminal Jury Instruction 7.1
It says:
"It will be sufficient proof of premeditation if the circumstances of the
killing and the conduct of the accused convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the
existence of premeditation at the time of the killing."

It says nothing about needing a single piece of a single piece of inculpatory evidence. Based on the jury instructions it says the jury is allowed to look at all the evidence when it says both the circumstances of the killing and the conduct of the accused. That's not a single piece of inculpatory evidence. Also note that circumstances is plural and the way conduct is used. Meaning multiple pieces of evidence.

So where exactly do the jury instructions say otherwise? To me it seems to contradict your statement about a single piece of inculpatory evidence , or is that just your own opinion of what it should say and not what it actually says?

 

[The Eunice Burns]

If I'm remembering the one you're thinking of, it wasn't set up quite this way. Poster's exhibit 1, the car trunk.... Poster's exhibit 25, Blockbuster video... and so on. If anyone recalls a thread more along the lines of what Imbackon is doing, please let me know. TIA!

Me too! I'd love to see it laid out exhibit by exhibit.

 

[marspiter]

Besides all inculpatory evidence means is that its evidence that establishes guilt. There are many cases that use multiple pieces of evidence to establish guilt. I would like to see and appeals case cited that says other wise.

 

[lin]

Will the defense even be able to argue the possibility of the duct tape being put on after death? Especially if KC hasn't even told them that is in fact what happened?

In the Huck case, Huck himself didn't say he duct taped his victim after death. That scenario was a hypothesis suggested by Huck's defense team. Their strategy was to attack LE's investigation, say the prosecution had not met the burden of proof and to suggest alternative "maybe" theories.

Can KC's defense team present a "maybe" now deemed by the Florida Supreme court NOT to be reasonable?

The duct tape is a fact in evidence. IMO, and again, not a criminal law expert, but based on my knowledge of Florida civil law and rudimentary knowledge of criminal law, yes, I think they can offer other theories for evidence presented. What they can't do is out of the blue suggest something.

As I've repeatedly stated, I do think the 5th DCA's opinion in Huck will be part of this case, although we may not hear of it. IF there is dispute about a state expert opining there is no reasonable explanation for duct tape after death, the state may use Huck to get that opinion admitted. On the other hand, this principle may be something well known by all the players and they won't need to present it, but the knowledge based on Huck will still be there in their minds, if you know what I mean.

Their best bet for the duct tape, imo, is suggesting a staged kidnapping scenario but then that goes back to premeditation. She planned to kill her and planned to orchestrate the crime scene (the remains) to point away from her guilt. That she didn't follow through until 31 days later doesn't mean that's not what happened. But they can't use it, imo, again, this would be nearly bullet proof evidence of premeditation, imo. It's not reasonable to infer that upon an accidental death, within moments, a distraught caretaker begins the coverup and plans a faked kidnapping and has duct tape that handy. It's not reasonable to infer that a fake kidnap would include duct tape over the nasal passages.

 

[lin]

sorry to tie up the thread so badly for those not really interested; but it is a very interesting case with some similarities to this.

 

[marspiter]

Thanks for posting that lin.

I wasn't sure if I could post the whole thing and didn't want to tie up that much room.

I think that case has many similarities to this one, and pretty much says what many of us have been saying about circumstantial evidence and weighing multiple pieces of evidence to produced one big picture.

 

[Jolynna]

Lin,

I hope you don't mind if I snip this line from one of your posts. I think it is a line that bears repeating. I love it.

"But the law is reason; it does not proceed upon fantasy or remote and unrealistic possibilities."

Link to post from which this line was taken, [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3979431&postcount=419"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt [/ame]

 

[Tuba]

What if chief prosecutor, the leading att'y for the State of Florida, has all of his or her evidence strictly lined up and, along with assistant prosecutor and some expert witnesses presents that evidence beautifully but on day 13 of the murder trial & just prior to deliberation, it is discovered that the stills and video of Amscot are not of the Amscot off Colonial but of another Amscot 2 miles away?

Not only does this one piece of evidence fail the 99% reliability test, it flunks with a zero. The balance of the evidence, of all categories and nature, however stands in memory and before the courtroom in credible and persuasive bearing. There might be some laughter among the audience and the jurors when the error is discovered but if they found the people's case otherwise convincing, would they let it fall because of the ridiculous and mistaken photographs and tape?

 

[marspiter]

What if chief prosecutor, the leading att'y for the State of Florida, has all of his or her evidence strictly lined up and, along with assistant prosecutor and some expert witnesses presents that evidence beautifully but on day 13 of the murder trial & just prior to deliberation, it is discovered that the stills and video of Amscot are not of the Amscot off Colonial but of another Amscot 2 miles away?

Not only does this one piece of evidence fail the 99% reliability test, it flunks with a zero. The balance of the evidence, of all categories and nature, however stands in memory and before the courtroom in credible and persuasive bearing. There might be some laughter among the audience and the jurors when the error is discovered but if they found the people's case otherwise convincing, would they let it fall because of the ridiculous and mistaken photographs and tape?

No it would not fail to garner a conviction or fail on an appeal based on your hypothetical. The case 363 F2d 859 Munich v. United States touches on that. I believe it also sites cases similar to what you are describing.

 

[JBean]

LOL, Lin please just post a link to the info, thanks.

 

[Wudge]

People v. Scott 176 Cal. App. 2d 458

If I'm not mistaken proves otherwise.

You are mistaken.

The Court neither ruled that the inculpatory circumstanial evidence in "Scott" (in and of itself) that the jury relied to form its inferred conclusion of "guilt" was not reliable to the level of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". Nor did the court find that such evidence was not presented at trial.

 

[lin]

LOL, Lin please just post a link to the info, thanks.

Believe me, if I could have, I would have --- it took a lot more time than I wanted to spend to edit out spaces and such to try to make it a bit smaller. However, can't link to a pay service.

ETA: But still want to thank everyone for not posting until it was finished; overly polite of y'all and appreciated. If the case had been allowed to stand in the multiple posts, it would have been much easier to follow.

 

[lin]

You are mistaken.

The Court neither ruled that the inculpatory circumstanial evidence in "Scott" (in and of itself) that the jury relied to form its inferred conclusion of "guilt" was not reliable to the level of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". Nor did the court find that such evidence was not presented at trial.

I concur with marspiter and believe it is you who are mistaken. The Scott court went to great lengths to show that it was the myriad of information, not any single fact in evidence, that led to the inescapable conclusion of the defendant's guilt. I believe marspiter was responding to your oft mentioned and imo mistaken contention that each piece of circumstantial evidence must be able to stand alone and must show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Scott case cited by marspiter shows your contention is not the law of this land.

Pity it was deleted before you read it. Perhaps you can find it on your own:

People v. Scott, 176 Cal. App. 2d 458, 1 Cal. Rptr. 600 (Cal.App.Dist.2 12/21/1959)

 

[marspiter]

I concur with marspiter and believe it is you who are mistaken. The Scott court went to great lengths to show that it was the myriad of information, not any single fact in evidence, that led to the inescapable conclusion of the defendant's guilt. I believe marspiter was responding to your oft mentioned and imo mistaken contention that each piece of circumstantial evidence must be able to stand alone and must show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Scott case cited by marspiter shows your contention is not the law of this land.

Pity it was deleted before you read it. Perhaps you can find it on your own:

People v. Scott, 176 Cal. App. 2d 458, 1 Cal. Rptr. 600 (Cal.App.Dist.2 12/21/1959)

Pretty much agree with lin here unless you can site other wise Wudge.

Show me case citation that proves what you are saying. Show me a case where each piece of evidence in and of its own accord must be deemed as you say.

Lets keep this simple. You can have a gun, a finger print, and a bullet. The finger print is found on the gun, the bullet matches the gun and the bullet is found in the victims body. The finger print matches the defendant. It takes all the evidence combined to piece together the story and show the defendant used the gun to shoot the victim.

Which is basically what was done in Scott. The jury reached its conviction based on all the circumstantial evidence combined. The appeals courts upheld that decision.